WASHINGTON—ABC has filed a blistering First Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, asking a federal court in the nation's capital to stop the controversial early broadcast license renewal proceedings ordered by the regulator.
The FCC instituted the proceeding as part of its investigation into DEI policies at the Disney and the ABC-owned stations in April, a decision that has drawn widespread condemnation from broadcasters, including the NAB, the FCC’s lone Democrat Commissioner Anna Gomez, free speech advocates, 13 former FCC officials, some conservative groups and the public. Around 95% of 153,318 comments filed in the proceeding have been in support of the license renewals.
“All broadcasters have a legal obligation to operate in the public interest—even Disney. The FCC has been examining claims that Disney engaged in illegal DEI discrimination for over a year,” an FCC spokesperson told TheWrap. “Disney is obviously very concerned about the FCC’s proceeding, as evidenced by their ongoing campaign of disinformation as well as their decision to ask a court to stop the FCC from further pursuing matters. The FCC will continue to follow the facts and law wherever they lead.”
As part of the lawsuit, which was filed with U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case #26-cv-2902), ABC also filed a motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction on August 18.
In the motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, ABC said that “This case boils down to a simple question: can the Administration use its control over the federal regulatory apparatus to punish a media organization for editorial decisions and news coverage it dislikes? Because the First Amendment provides a clear answer—of course not—this Court’s intervention is necessary to stop the Federal Communications Commission’s extraordinary assault on free speech.”
In the full complaint, ABC stressed that “Government censorship is deeply un-American. That fundamental principle predates the Republic, with our Founders recognizing that “the freedom of the press is one of the great[est] bulwarks of liberty.’ And it is no less true today, as the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed only two years ago: the government may not `use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.’ This case concerns the Administration’s sustained effort to do just that. Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.”
Citing social media posts from President Donald Trump and a long list of comments by the president and FCC Chair Brendan Carr, the complaint also alleges that the retaliatory campaign “began in this Administration’s earliest days and has only intensified since. Again and again, the Administration has attacked ABC’s speech—the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air. Over time, those attacks have escalated into express demands that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses because of its speech.”
“Facing this existential threat, Plaintiffs have no choice but to seek redress from the judicial branch for the Administration’s blatant retaliation for their First Amendment speech,” the complaint said. “Plaintiffs come to this Court reluctantly with no alternative means to eliminate these ongoing and immediate threats other than total capitulation to the Administration’s demands.”
The Complaint also detailed how the FCC’s actions created “irreparable harm,” both to the company and the media industry.
“The pressure exerted by the Administration’s mounting campaign of retaliation against ABC has been deeply felt throughout the company,” the complaint said. “The campaign is also calculated to operate in terrorem upon the rest of the industry: ABC is the visible target and suffers the most immediate harm, but the message is addressed to every broadcaster in the country, and the ultimate cost is borne by the press as a whole.”
In addition, “the FCC’s demand for early renewal applications reveals its intent to either hold a hearing to deny the applications or simply to subject Plaintiffs to months—and likely years—of onerous litigation and regulatory uncertainty. Either way, the agency succeeds at continuing to punish Plaintiffs.”
In a separate motion, ABC argued that the “Court should grant Plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order preventing the Commission from taking any further action with respect to its retaliatory early renewal application order and enter a preliminary injunction that halts the early renewals proceedings—and associated threats of revocation in response to ABC’s protected editorial discretion—pending the resolution of this case.”
In response to the complaint, Commissioner Gomez said in a statement that “for months, the FCC has waged a campaign of censorship and control against Disney’s ABC stations, using the threat of broadcast license revocations to punish a company for speech this administration doesn’t like. I have long called on companies to push back against this kind of government intimidation, and I’m glad Disney has shown courage and stepped up. This should be a welcome sign for every broadcaster who has felt the weight of this overreaching government pressure in silence.”
“I am hopeful that this will mark the beginning of the end of this administration’s disregard for the Constitution and the law, and that the coming months will bring the costly legal defeat this agency has been asking for since it started down this path,” she added. “It is time this administration understands that the Constitution does not bend to political convenience, and that the First Amendment protects the news and commentary Americans see on their screens even when those in power wish it didn’t.”
Freedom of the Press Foundation chief of advocacy Seth Stern said, "t’s about time for someone to take Carr and his FCC to court over their endless campaign of intimidation and retaliation against journalism that displeases Carr’s thin-skinned boss. No matter what pretexts he asserts, Carr’s modus operandi is clear: to serve as Trump’s censorship czar and abuse his office to repeatedly and exclusively target Trump’s perceived adversaries in the media, whether through sham proceedings or threatening letters and X posts. Carr knows the FCC is not the journalism police and said so regularly himself before he decided to throw away any integrity he once had to kiss up to Trump. Countless others whose First Amendment rights have been chilled by Carr’s antics should follow Disney’s lead.”
David Inserra, a fellow for free expression and technology at the Cato Institute said in a statement that "the current FCC has repeatedly used its power over broadcast speech to jawbone, punish, and threaten censorship of its political opponents. Today's lawsuit by ABC Disney against the FCC directly challenges the broad and abusive powers that Congress and prior court decisions gave the FCC. No government agency should ever be empowered to restrict free expression based on what it thinks is fair, equal, or in the best interest of the public. In a world where the American people and press can speak through print, broadcast, cable, satellite, internet, and other forms of media, there is no justification for the FCC to continue to wield such significant power over broadcast speech."
[More comments will be added as they come in.]
